"Government's role is to protect your enumerated rights (see Bill of Rights)."
The portion of the Constitution empowering congress to pass laws for the general welfare was written before there was a bill of rights and there is an amendment for the explicit purpose of making clear that the bill of rights are explicitly enumerated rights but that all rights not granted were reserved to the people. Just because it isn't in the bill of rights doesn't mean it isn't a right. For example, the right to privacy which is cornerstone logical principle behind some of the restrictions on government in the Constitution but not listed in the bill of rights.
Welfare did not and still does not mean "welfare" in the handout to the poor sense if that is what you mean. It was and is synonymous with "well being" and "good", Congress is empowered to pass laws which directly benefit the well being of the general population. The term general here prohibits any kind of limiting provision except possibility to citizens. As long as something would be a benefit to any person, and is potentially applicable to every person it qualifies as potential congressional action. Universal healthcare meets this provision although it wasn't a potential consideration at the time. You can not pursue happiness if you are sick or dead. The provisions in the Constitution such as a right to trial by jury, the requirement of a warrant for search and seizure, the right to move freely between states, collective bargaining with foreign entities, etc are actually examples of the kind of things congress is intended to do. The federal government primarily exists to pass laws to prevent the abuse of citizens by state and local government, to protect citizens rights, including the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness.
"You point to the constitution and say "interstate commerce" applies to everything and even if I grow wheat in my own backyard"
You are mistaken on this point. Interstate commerce clearly indicates any and all actual commercial transactions which actually involve parties in different states.
"The real problem that the Democrat and Republican parties are facing is that they each have an outsider candidate, who is not part of their party but just "running as" a member, who is either blowing everyone else out (Trump) or putting up a much more substantial fight than expected (Sanders). If the election actually came down to Sanders versus Trump there would be a lot of democrats and republicans looking around feeling like they don't have a candidate in the election, and rightly so."
You say that like it's a bad thing and isn't the very reason Trump and Sanders have so much support. Obama won just saying the word "change" people actually want change, for real, the population wants the establishment out. Coming up very soon 80% of congress seats will be up for re-election and the chance to oust these guys is upon us.
If Bloomberg jumps in the polls show it hurts Hillary but not Sanders. If either Trump OR Sanders drop for whatever reason while the other is still in, a good portion of their support might jump ship to the other. And things could change drastically after the primaries because in most states voters are locked into whatever they said when they registered and independent means no dice. Polls show less than half the general (registered voter) population like Hillary OR Trump while Sanders is the most favored by a large margin at 60% and solidly beats all other candidates head-to-head in a general election by solid margins. Hillary beats only Trump and only by 3% while trailing any of the other potential Republicans by a few percent.
You are confusing the primaries with the actual election. In most states people who are not registered as democrats aren't allowed to vote in their primaries. Polling among the general population of registered voters shows Bernie as being the most favored candidate across the board by a wide margin at 60% and solidly beating all Republican candidates on a head to head election basis by a solid margin. Hillary only beats Trump and only by 3% and loses to all other candidates.
The primaries are far from over. Obama was losing after super tuesday as well. It would help if he announced Warren as his running mate. Sanders is a very old man, his VP has a good chance of becoming President, especially if he went a second term.
"Small flaw in your argument. If "your" phone is being monitored, it's not really your phone. It belongs to someone else, they are lending it to you, and it's their right to know what you're doing with their stuff."
First, no matter who owns the phone I have an expectation of privacy unless I'm at work. Second, you can bring your own device. Third, notifying me that they are monitoring does not prevent them from doing so, negating any relevance to whether or not they are entitled to do so.
"If work requires you to carry their phone around 24/7 and you're worried about cam/mic/GPS tracking, just give them your personal phone number and turn your work phone off. Tell them if they need to contact you, to text you at your personal number, and you'll turn the work phone on long enough to communicate with them."
That isn't a realistic option if someone doesn't care to be contacted on their personal number at inappropriate times such as on a personal day, a family emergency, or vacation. People at work tend to have a sense of urgency with regard to business and forget that you are only paid to pretend you share that feeling during a brief window of time. This is similar to how businesses pay me to pretend my direct report is my superior, in a limited set circumstances on a limited set of topics. In reality I have no superiors. A business has to pay people to listen to them much like some have to pay a prostitute to pretend they like them but paying someone to pretend you have authority or are liked does not make it actually true.
"Six corporations own 90% of the U.S. media markets. Corporations tend to be conservative rather than liberal."
Nonsense. At least if you are implying the political parties typically called "conservative" and "liberal."
The copyright, patent, and communication corporate cartels are openly and directly supported by D type spin. In practice if not spin their candidates also support the massive corporations in the defense (defense spending hasn't dropped under Obama), insurance, and healthcare industries (FDA granted immunity and high barrier to market entry, healthcare initiatives that require everyone to roll dice at the insurance casinos).
The big players in industries complain about regulatory expenses while actually backdoor funding them. These expenses are a simple cost of doing business which are far far cheaper than competing with smaller more agile competitors. The regulatory agencies themselves are normally staffed directly from the ranks of these industries and given extremely lucrative golden parachute "consulting" or "lobbying" jobs at the end of their terms.
Of course, the R's act in the interests of the same people they just do so with a different spin. The only reason you have both is to give the illusion of choice and having opposing spin means you can claim victory on the results that are consistent with your spin and blame the other guys for the compromises. But whichever way the spin flows, the actual results will always benefit the above corporations one way or another.
A carefully controlled forum in which only positions on the issues the two parties like to distract us with are allowed talking time might technically be a debate but who gives a damn about it?
I suppose that depends on when you are talking about. Democracy once meant the people ruled whereas a Republic was rule by representative. Declaring all sorts of not democracy to be flavors of democracy is what has evolved since because it is very political to call something democracy.
We certainly do not really have democracy here in the US. The people do not even elect their representatives, see the electoral college. Within the major parties see the delegates and super delegates as well as the currently discussed brokered convention.
After bloody revolution the people had all powers and authority. The Constitution is a grant of power from the people and the source (and limit) of power for both the state and federal governments. The Constitution sets limits on government which apply to both the states and the federal government but only enumerates the powers of the Federal government without actually specifying what is granted to the states.
The Constitution did indeed separate out military power, only allowing the federal government to control a navy and no domestic forces while reserving all domestic military force of arms to the people. The US Army is illegal, as are the marines (which are just a second army within the navy just in case this were ever enforced), and the airforce is unspecified but it's domestic war potential should put it in the control of the people, the same of course for the blue angels, the again redundant backup within the Navy. Your aircraft carriers would just need to be loaded up with militia craft after a congressional declaration of war meeting the full constitutionally outlined requirements.
As for universal healthcare, unlike most of the overreach of both the state and especially federal government it is pretty solidly within federal authority as the congress is empowered to make laws for the general welfare and good health is good for ones welfare and universal is quite decidedly general in scope.
Let's be honest, you just don't want to pay for it. The UK provides total healthcare for less tax dollars per citizen than the US spends per citizen providing no healthcare at all. In theory if we did it like the UK you could see a tax cut in addition to not having to pay health care expenses. But really, the people of the UK pay an awful lot in taxes overall so starting to copy them might be a slippy slope and who says our government wouldn't screw it up where they got it right. After all, a lot of the expense is from FDA costs which can raise the cost of something that took $50 to design and prototype to a shelf price of several thousand dollars in the US and you want to get rid of that red tape and cut the costs that way. I don't think that will ever happen but I can understand the argument.
Really, you aren't a monster who wants everyone in our supposedly great nation to have poor health or to limit it to just those exceptional gifted/lucky few who are born with means or are able to break out of their station and achieve the American dream. You just don't want to have to pay for it. I don't blame you. But your Constitutional argument is the illegally ratified amendment to the Constitution that enabled income tax and made everyone a federal citizen and the illegal and treasonous ruling by the supreme court upholding an amendment that did not meet the requirements of the Constitution. Some people will bring up that whole slavery thing but it's highly questionable whether slavery was legal under the Constitution in the first place and an act of congress could have abolished it. Again, for the general welfare. I think most of us can agree, being made a slave is not so much good for one's welfare.
Without that amendment, we are state citizens. 50 states can potentially have 50 different taxation systems and the federal government can be funded by the states.
"I just find it ironic that the only thing people seem to complain about is fairness in reporting - a fairly peripheric issue - when the entire system is unfair to the core."
Most people get their information and knowledge of the system via reporting and each other (who again, mostly got it from reporting) therefore what and how things are reported is perceived as what and how things are and most of your peers see it the same way.
People have also been found to respond better when given a choice and some kind of justification for behavior. For example, if one says "Hey guys, go dig me an outhouse." Everyone is likely to say, "Go fuck yourself." But if one says, "It stinks in here, which of you want to dig the hole and which would rather work on the closet." About 66% will choose either option A or B, with 33% doing other. Mostly people flock like birds so if you seed the group with people who will agree right away to each task you'll head off other speaking first and also capture most of other as they go along with the group. That is why the powers at be have two major parties.
They even switch them up, 1984 style, what is D today used to be what R stood for and vice versa just like pink was once a boy color and blue a girl color. It helps keep everyone divided so there are historical counterpoints on either side. Of course it is really all a big dog and pony show with the same agenda spun different ways combined with a bunch of emotional issues that polarize people but the powers at be don't really care about.
Take that statement, correct the grammar, then swap out the liberal and conservative parts leaving the rest intact and it still works!
If there is one thing that seems pretty clear it's that Sanders and Trump are both hated by the elite of their party and the sleeping giant of "None of the above" voters are starting to notice and believe they might be viable ways to strike back at them. Both those who normally vote lesser of two evils within the parties and those who don't think it matters because they all do the same crap with different spin.
Are these guys really any different? I doubt it but their success just on the perception they are combined with the appearance voting for them could rock the boat is enough to send a serious message.
Instead of advising us our phones are monitored, which we already know, the device informs us when anyone actively uses these functions, especially remote access to the cam/mic. Locate notification should be an option but in practice many organizations would simply have automatic logging of this data and it would trigger every few minutes.
His studies have been replicated by several third parties with similar or even greater obedience rates. The article calls into doubt the dehoaxing he did, pointing out how traumatized people were years afterward over what they'd done then claims subjects knew it was a hoax on the testimony of a disgruntled former student. It claims there is evidence on the audio tapes of the researcher "improvising" on the verbal cues for the teacher to proceed. But that doesn't move the bar from proceeding in response to nothing but verbal prompting.
The only other content in that article is an assertion that a Yale lab is not the same as a Nazi death camp or Vietnam. Granted, a Yale lab and verbal prompting is a far lower bar of pressure to obey than either of those situations coupled with good rhetoric to sell yourself on your actions while the Milgram experiments had only the justification of an experiment.
The holocaust might have been a great headline for selling books and is dramatic but the worst examples of this phenomenon can be seen all around you every day. Politicians and corporations take advantage of this every day. Can you seriously look around you and say this isn't true? Can you look at yourself and say it isn't true? Are you building your retirement and stocking your home on the compounded interest derived from Chinese and Mexican oppression as well as funding the effort to put yourself and/or your friends and colleagues out of work? If so, realize you are both the top and bottom of those food chains. Now decide if you'll find a way to disobey and opt-out of all of the above.
Isn't this like a police officer reporting that waze failed to warn him about his speed trap before he set it up and gave out four tickets?
How exactly was a navigation app supposed to warn the soldiers an area was dangerous when the only thing that made it dangerous was two soldiers walking into a peaceful neighborhood then subsequently shooting it up, killing a person and injuring 10 others. Or are they really suggesting they walked into a pack of heavily armed dangerous Palestinians who unexpectedly opened fire on them, all missing with every surprise shot, with the result of them walking away chuckling and talking about a smartphone app leaving a trail of bodies behind because they are just that damn good.
Have they ever considered the possibility that Google is okay with people of both sides of their holy war using the app and considers an area safe until someone on either side reports a couple murderous militant assholes shooting someone who prays to wrong flavor of the same sky fairy?
Correct, I also forgot to mention the subjects were given a single example painful shock from the machine at the lowest setting before beginning with the other "subject."
This is just another variation of the same behavior studies conducted with pain experiments.
Two test subjects, who just met, were told by a researcher they'd also just met, that they were testing the impact of negative reinforcement on memory and neurological performance. They would be put in separate rooms, one in the room with the researcher at a desk behind them, mostly reviewing paperwork but occasionally instructing the subject to follow the protocol and administer the test and the other in a second room connected to a machine that delivered shocks. The first subject would read a list of words and then query the second, going down a second list asking if each word were on the first. This person had an intercom into the room of the second subject who would press a button to indicate positive or negative. An incorrect response resulted in the first subject pressing a switch to deliver a shock, each subsequent incorrect response required the subject to utilize the next toggle switch on a machine to increase the shock level.
The levels of shock were extreme, as the study progressed the second subject would scream, would demand this be stopped, even beg over the course of time. The second subject would indicate things like having a pacemaker and being concerned with his heart, etc. Of course, subject 1 delivering the shocks was the only real test subject was being paid no more than a tiny token sum as in all such studies and could simply stand up and walk away at any time without consequence. Given no more than verbal prompting from the "researcher" nearly every subject went all the way, delivering what they believed were thousands of volts to another human being who was begging to be released. Many of them in tears, nervous laughter, sweating and showing stress, etc. Initially this study was challenged on ethical grounds despite the subjects simply being able to stand up and walk out at any point without any hint of a consequence. Later, the study was expanded globally and it was found the results were similar with samples throughout the world.
People obey. They will do the most horrific things and do so at the direction of a complete stranger with no more authority than having a $5 white coat in a building filled with students and for no more incentive than $5-10. 80-90% of people will do what they are told by someone they believe to be an authority figure. Possibly even more importantly than the mere fact people obey is that when silo'd in the sense of being assigned a role and authority figure people disassociate from their actions, assigning blame for their own actions at the direction of another on the other even when that other isn't even a person just a paper entity that is a composite of people with every single person in that composite feeling the same way. This is the danger of government entities and corporations which are designed in exactly this manner. It would seem this also applies when the authority is nothing more than a machine such as a GPS or a robot.
1 and 2 go back to that abuse of contempt of court powers to violate the Constitution and 3 refers to an illegal act of congress outside their authority and in direct violation of the law that is the only thing granting them any authority in the first place.
People tend to forget that The People are in charge, not the bodies they gave some limited and restricted authority via the Constitution.
Indeed, if the democratic party incorporated and entity and ran it for president it would be Hillary Clinton. If the republican party did the same it would be Ted Cruz, Donal Trump is essentially what it would be if Jon Stewart were to run for president, a comedy act variation of the incorporated entity.
The only candidate who actually is not a party rubber stamp per his positions and statements and might cross the isle at all is Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, Sanders is still a seasoned politician, supports encryption backdoors, and supports punishing Edward Snowden likely the greatest hero of the modern age.
"Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.
Suppose you split off department B into company B. Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way."
It doesn't make sense because you are oversimplifying a bit. Not all expenses are deductible and some types of income are taxed differently depending on how you are organized and how profits are disposed of. Siloing into different companies allows for lots of tricks jumping around the tax code, like company A and company B using different "standard" accounting practices. Any and all deductions and credits with caps are also reset since each company A and B can hit the cap. Corporate taxation works very differently from personal taxation.
Additionally, it greatly simplifies things on your balance sheet because if a third party can provide company A the service company B provides at lower cost you can simply fold or sell company B and take a big loss on paper.
"However, Apple is not above the law in regards to producing a copy of materials in their possession relating to a 3rd party as required or desired for law enforcement to conduct an investigation"
A lawful warrant is the key requirement there and parties are not required to produce anything in response to a lawful warrant, a lawful warrant only authorizes law enforcement to look for what they want. There is no requirement that one help. Judges abusing contempt of court authority should not be confused with the creation of law entitling courts to anything it wants nor should judges be allowed to subject you to a contempt of court penalty without due process (your right to have a jury of peers nullify the attempt to imprison you). The courts do not out rank the people.
Slashdot Mirror
74 vs 68 may not seem like a huge gap but gender comes into play here. Men simply do not live as long.
"Government's role is to protect your enumerated rights (see Bill of Rights)."
The portion of the Constitution empowering congress to pass laws for the general welfare was written before there was a bill of rights and there is an amendment for the explicit purpose of making clear that the bill of rights are explicitly enumerated rights but that all rights not granted were reserved to the people. Just because it isn't in the bill of rights doesn't mean it isn't a right. For example, the right to privacy which is cornerstone logical principle behind some of the restrictions on government in the Constitution but not listed in the bill of rights.
Welfare did not and still does not mean "welfare" in the handout to the poor sense if that is what you mean. It was and is synonymous with "well being" and "good", Congress is empowered to pass laws which directly benefit the well being of the general population. The term general here prohibits any kind of limiting provision except possibility to citizens. As long as something would be a benefit to any person, and is potentially applicable to every person it qualifies as potential congressional action. Universal healthcare meets this provision although it wasn't a potential consideration at the time. You can not pursue happiness if you are sick or dead. The provisions in the Constitution such as a right to trial by jury, the requirement of a warrant for search and seizure, the right to move freely between states, collective bargaining with foreign entities, etc are actually examples of the kind of things congress is intended to do. The federal government primarily exists to pass laws to prevent the abuse of citizens by state and local government, to protect citizens rights, including the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness.
"You point to the constitution and say "interstate commerce" applies to everything and even if I grow wheat in my own backyard"
You are mistaken on this point. Interstate commerce clearly indicates any and all actual commercial transactions which actually involve parties in different states.
"The real problem that the Democrat and Republican parties are facing is that they each have an outsider candidate, who is not part of their party but just "running as" a member, who is either blowing everyone else out (Trump) or putting up a much more substantial fight than expected (Sanders). If the election actually came down to Sanders versus Trump there would be a lot of democrats and republicans looking around feeling like they don't have a candidate in the election, and rightly so."
You say that like it's a bad thing and isn't the very reason Trump and Sanders have so much support. Obama won just saying the word "change" people actually want change, for real, the population wants the establishment out. Coming up very soon 80% of congress seats will be up for re-election and the chance to oust these guys is upon us.
If Bloomberg jumps in the polls show it hurts Hillary but not Sanders. If either Trump OR Sanders drop for whatever reason while the other is still in, a good portion of their support might jump ship to the other. And things could change drastically after the primaries because in most states voters are locked into whatever they said when they registered and independent means no dice. Polls show less than half the general (registered voter) population like Hillary OR Trump while Sanders is the most favored by a large margin at 60% and solidly beats all other candidates head-to-head in a general election by solid margins. Hillary beats only Trump and only by 3% while trailing any of the other potential Republicans by a few percent.
You are confusing the primaries with the actual election. In most states people who are not registered as democrats aren't allowed to vote in their primaries. Polling among the general population of registered voters shows Bernie as being the most favored candidate across the board by a wide margin at 60% and solidly beating all Republican candidates on a head to head election basis by a solid margin. Hillary only beats Trump and only by 3% and loses to all other candidates.
The primaries are far from over. Obama was losing after super tuesday as well. It would help if he announced Warren as his running mate. Sanders is a very old man, his VP has a good chance of becoming President, especially if he went a second term.
"Small flaw in your argument. If "your" phone is being monitored, it's not really your phone. It belongs to someone else, they are lending it to you, and it's their right to know what you're doing with their stuff."
First, no matter who owns the phone I have an expectation of privacy unless I'm at work. Second, you can bring your own device. Third, notifying me that they are monitoring does not prevent them from doing so, negating any relevance to whether or not they are entitled to do so.
"If work requires you to carry their phone around 24/7 and you're worried about cam/mic/GPS tracking, just give them your personal phone number and turn your work phone off. Tell them if they need to contact you, to text you at your personal number, and you'll turn the work phone on long enough to communicate with them."
That isn't a realistic option if someone doesn't care to be contacted on their personal number at inappropriate times such as on a personal day, a family emergency, or vacation. People at work tend to have a sense of urgency with regard to business and forget that you are only paid to pretend you share that feeling during a brief window of time. This is similar to how businesses pay me to pretend my direct report is my superior, in a limited set circumstances on a limited set of topics. In reality I have no superiors. A business has to pay people to listen to them much like some have to pay a prostitute to pretend they like them but paying someone to pretend you have authority or are liked does not make it actually true.
Here here!
"Six corporations own 90% of the U.S. media markets. Corporations tend to be conservative rather than liberal."
Nonsense. At least if you are implying the political parties typically called "conservative" and "liberal."
The copyright, patent, and communication corporate cartels are openly and directly supported by D type spin. In practice if not spin their candidates also support the massive corporations in the defense (defense spending hasn't dropped under Obama), insurance, and healthcare industries (FDA granted immunity and high barrier to market entry, healthcare initiatives that require everyone to roll dice at the insurance casinos).
The big players in industries complain about regulatory expenses while actually backdoor funding them. These expenses are a simple cost of doing business which are far far cheaper than competing with smaller more agile competitors. The regulatory agencies themselves are normally staffed directly from the ranks of these industries and given extremely lucrative golden parachute "consulting" or "lobbying" jobs at the end of their terms.
Of course, the R's act in the interests of the same people they just do so with a different spin. The only reason you have both is to give the illusion of choice and having opposing spin means you can claim victory on the results that are consistent with your spin and blame the other guys for the compromises. But whichever way the spin flows, the actual results will always benefit the above corporations one way or another.
"I think it would be kinda fun if candidates were allowed full use of their team during debates"
You aren't under the impression they are winging it are you? They do have earpieces.
A carefully controlled forum in which only positions on the issues the two parties like to distract us with are allowed talking time might technically be a debate but who gives a damn about it?
I suppose that depends on when you are talking about. Democracy once meant the people ruled whereas a Republic was rule by representative. Declaring all sorts of not democracy to be flavors of democracy is what has evolved since because it is very political to call something democracy.
We certainly do not really have democracy here in the US. The people do not even elect their representatives, see the electoral college. Within the major parties see the delegates and super delegates as well as the currently discussed brokered convention.
After bloody revolution the people had all powers and authority. The Constitution is a grant of power from the people and the source (and limit) of power for both the state and federal governments. The Constitution sets limits on government which apply to both the states and the federal government but only enumerates the powers of the Federal government without actually specifying what is granted to the states.
The Constitution did indeed separate out military power, only allowing the federal government to control a navy and no domestic forces while reserving all domestic military force of arms to the people. The US Army is illegal, as are the marines (which are just a second army within the navy just in case this were ever enforced), and the airforce is unspecified but it's domestic war potential should put it in the control of the people, the same of course for the blue angels, the again redundant backup within the Navy. Your aircraft carriers would just need to be loaded up with militia craft after a congressional declaration of war meeting the full constitutionally outlined requirements.
As for universal healthcare, unlike most of the overreach of both the state and especially federal government it is pretty solidly within federal authority as the congress is empowered to make laws for the general welfare and good health is good for ones welfare and universal is quite decidedly general in scope.
Let's be honest, you just don't want to pay for it. The UK provides total healthcare for less tax dollars per citizen than the US spends per citizen providing no healthcare at all. In theory if we did it like the UK you could see a tax cut in addition to not having to pay health care expenses. But really, the people of the UK pay an awful lot in taxes overall so starting to copy them might be a slippy slope and who says our government wouldn't screw it up where they got it right. After all, a lot of the expense is from FDA costs which can raise the cost of something that took $50 to design and prototype to a shelf price of several thousand dollars in the US and you want to get rid of that red tape and cut the costs that way. I don't think that will ever happen but I can understand the argument.
Really, you aren't a monster who wants everyone in our supposedly great nation to have poor health or to limit it to just those exceptional gifted/lucky few who are born with means or are able to break out of their station and achieve the American dream. You just don't want to have to pay for it. I don't blame you. But your Constitutional argument is the illegally ratified amendment to the Constitution that enabled income tax and made everyone a federal citizen and the illegal and treasonous ruling by the supreme court upholding an amendment that did not meet the requirements of the Constitution. Some people will bring up that whole slavery thing but it's highly questionable whether slavery was legal under the Constitution in the first place and an act of congress could have abolished it. Again, for the general welfare. I think most of us can agree, being made a slave is not so much good for one's welfare.
Without that amendment, we are state citizens. 50 states can potentially have 50 different taxation systems and the federal government can be funded by the states.
"I just find it ironic that the only thing people seem to complain about is fairness in reporting - a fairly peripheric issue - when the entire system is unfair to the core."
Most people get their information and knowledge of the system via reporting and each other (who again, mostly got it from reporting) therefore what and how things are reported is perceived as what and how things are and most of your peers see it the same way.
People have also been found to respond better when given a choice and some kind of justification for behavior. For example, if one says "Hey guys, go dig me an outhouse." Everyone is likely to say, "Go fuck yourself." But if one says, "It stinks in here, which of you want to dig the hole and which would rather work on the closet." About 66% will choose either option A or B, with 33% doing other. Mostly people flock like birds so if you seed the group with people who will agree right away to each task you'll head off other speaking first and also capture most of other as they go along with the group. That is why the powers at be have two major parties.
They even switch them up, 1984 style, what is D today used to be what R stood for and vice versa just like pink was once a boy color and blue a girl color. It helps keep everyone divided so there are historical counterpoints on either side. Of course it is really all a big dog and pony show with the same agenda spun different ways combined with a bunch of emotional issues that polarize people but the powers at be don't really care about.
"What's your solution? I know it's not revolt since most people that complain about corporate bias generally support an unarmed civilian population."
I know. They've rigged the system pretty well eh?
Take that statement, correct the grammar, then swap out the liberal and conservative parts leaving the rest intact and it still works!
If there is one thing that seems pretty clear it's that Sanders and Trump are both hated by the elite of their party and the sleeping giant of "None of the above" voters are starting to notice and believe they might be viable ways to strike back at them. Both those who normally vote lesser of two evils within the parties and those who don't think it matters because they all do the same crap with different spin.
Are these guys really any different? I doubt it but their success just on the perception they are combined with the appearance voting for them could rock the boat is enough to send a serious message.
Instead of advising us our phones are monitored, which we already know, the device informs us when anyone actively uses these functions, especially remote access to the cam/mic. Locate notification should be an option but in practice many organizations would simply have automatic logging of this data and it would trigger every few minutes.
His studies have been replicated by several third parties with similar or even greater obedience rates. The article calls into doubt the dehoaxing he did, pointing out how traumatized people were years afterward over what they'd done then claims subjects knew it was a hoax on the testimony of a disgruntled former student. It claims there is evidence on the audio tapes of the researcher "improvising" on the verbal cues for the teacher to proceed. But that doesn't move the bar from proceeding in response to nothing but verbal prompting.
The only other content in that article is an assertion that a Yale lab is not the same as a Nazi death camp or Vietnam. Granted, a Yale lab and verbal prompting is a far lower bar of pressure to obey than either of those situations coupled with good rhetoric to sell yourself on your actions while the Milgram experiments had only the justification of an experiment.
The holocaust might have been a great headline for selling books and is dramatic but the worst examples of this phenomenon can be seen all around you every day. Politicians and corporations take advantage of this every day. Can you seriously look around you and say this isn't true? Can you look at yourself and say it isn't true? Are you building your retirement and stocking your home on the compounded interest derived from Chinese and Mexican oppression as well as funding the effort to put yourself and/or your friends and colleagues out of work? If so, realize you are both the top and bottom of those food chains. Now decide if you'll find a way to disobey and opt-out of all of the above.
Isn't this like a police officer reporting that waze failed to warn him about his speed trap before he set it up and gave out four tickets?
How exactly was a navigation app supposed to warn the soldiers an area was dangerous when the only thing that made it dangerous was two soldiers walking into a peaceful neighborhood then subsequently shooting it up, killing a person and injuring 10 others. Or are they really suggesting they walked into a pack of heavily armed dangerous Palestinians who unexpectedly opened fire on them, all missing with every surprise shot, with the result of them walking away chuckling and talking about a smartphone app leaving a trail of bodies behind because they are just that damn good.
Have they ever considered the possibility that Google is okay with people of both sides of their holy war using the app and considers an area safe until someone on either side reports a couple murderous militant assholes shooting someone who prays to wrong flavor of the same sky fairy?
Correct, I also forgot to mention the subjects were given a single example painful shock from the machine at the lowest setting before beginning with the other "subject."
You could look up the experiment or watch "The Experiment" since there was a recent movie made about these studies.
This is just another variation of the same behavior studies conducted with pain experiments.
Two test subjects, who just met, were told by a researcher they'd also just met, that they were testing the impact of negative reinforcement on memory and neurological performance. They would be put in separate rooms, one in the room with the researcher at a desk behind them, mostly reviewing paperwork but occasionally instructing the subject to follow the protocol and administer the test and the other in a second room connected to a machine that delivered shocks. The first subject would read a list of words and then query the second, going down a second list asking if each word were on the first. This person had an intercom into the room of the second subject who would press a button to indicate positive or negative. An incorrect response resulted in the first subject pressing a switch to deliver a shock, each subsequent incorrect response required the subject to utilize the next toggle switch on a machine to increase the shock level.
The levels of shock were extreme, as the study progressed the second subject would scream, would demand this be stopped, even beg over the course of time. The second subject would indicate things like having a pacemaker and being concerned with his heart, etc. Of course, subject 1 delivering the shocks was the only real test subject was being paid no more than a tiny token sum as in all such studies and could simply stand up and walk away at any time without consequence. Given no more than verbal prompting from the "researcher" nearly every subject went all the way, delivering what they believed were thousands of volts to another human being who was begging to be released. Many of them in tears, nervous laughter, sweating and showing stress, etc. Initially this study was challenged on ethical grounds despite the subjects simply being able to stand up and walk out at any point without any hint of a consequence. Later, the study was expanded globally and it was found the results were similar with samples throughout the world.
People obey. They will do the most horrific things and do so at the direction of a complete stranger with no more authority than having a $5 white coat in a building filled with students and for no more incentive than $5-10. 80-90% of people will do what they are told by someone they believe to be an authority figure. Possibly even more importantly than the mere fact people obey is that when silo'd in the sense of being assigned a role and authority figure people disassociate from their actions, assigning blame for their own actions at the direction of another on the other even when that other isn't even a person just a paper entity that is a composite of people with every single person in that composite feeling the same way. This is the danger of government entities and corporations which are designed in exactly this manner. It would seem this also applies when the authority is nothing more than a machine such as a GPS or a robot.
Donald Trump most definitely is a comedy act but I never said that he wasn't dangerous.
1 and 2 go back to that abuse of contempt of court powers to violate the Constitution and 3 refers to an illegal act of congress outside their authority and in direct violation of the law that is the only thing granting them any authority in the first place.
People tend to forget that The People are in charge, not the bodies they gave some limited and restricted authority via the Constitution.
Indeed, if the democratic party incorporated and entity and ran it for president it would be Hillary Clinton. If the republican party did the same it would be Ted Cruz, Donal Trump is essentially what it would be if Jon Stewart were to run for president, a comedy act variation of the incorporated entity.
The only candidate who actually is not a party rubber stamp per his positions and statements and might cross the isle at all is Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, Sanders is still a seasoned politician, supports encryption backdoors, and supports punishing Edward Snowden likely the greatest hero of the modern age.
"Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.
Suppose you split off department B into company B.
Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way."
It doesn't make sense because you are oversimplifying a bit. Not all expenses are deductible and some types of income are taxed differently depending on how you are organized and how profits are disposed of. Siloing into different companies allows for lots of tricks jumping around the tax code, like company A and company B using different "standard" accounting practices. Any and all deductions and credits with caps are also reset since each company A and B can hit the cap. Corporate taxation works very differently from personal taxation.
Additionally, it greatly simplifies things on your balance sheet because if a third party can provide company A the service company B provides at lower cost you can simply fold or sell company B and take a big loss on paper.
"However, Apple is not above the law in regards to producing a copy of materials in their possession relating to a 3rd party as required or desired for law enforcement to conduct an investigation"
A lawful warrant is the key requirement there and parties are not required to produce anything in response to a lawful warrant, a lawful warrant only authorizes law enforcement to look for what they want. There is no requirement that one help. Judges abusing contempt of court authority should not be confused with the creation of law entitling courts to anything it wants nor should judges be allowed to subject you to a contempt of court penalty without due process (your right to have a jury of peers nullify the attempt to imprison you). The courts do not out rank the people.